Some of the most vehement critics of Australia’s involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter program had their day in the sun on Tuesday afternoon when they testified before a high level parliamentary defence committee.Representatives of anti-JSF think tank Air Power Australia and RepSim Pty Ltd were given an hour to make their case before the defence subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.

By the time the group was 30 minutes into its presentation at least five of the committee members had left the room.

Remaining committee members, including Opposition defence spokesman Senator David Johnston, were told the JSF program was a failure, the planes only had limited stealth capability and that they were compromised by the use of a core design to produce three different variants; a conventional land based plane, a short take off and landing variant that will replace the US Marine Corps’ Harrier jets and a carrier version.

Air Power Australia wants the Australian Government to abandon the JSF and, instead, exert pressure on the US Government to scrap the program in favour of having Lockheed Martin re-open its F-22 Raptor production line and make that plane, arguably the world’s best air superiority fighter, available to the international partners.

``We’re building the wrong aircraft,’’ spokesman Peter Goon said.

Independent analysts say this is unlikely to ever happen – and that the F-22 was never released for foreign sales in any case.

Senior Defence officials, who have been aware of the Air Power Australia claims for some time and give them little credence, are not expected to take Tuesday’s presentation lying down. It is understood a formal response could be made to the committee around the middle of next month.

Mr Goon said the STOVL F-35B variant imposed weight and performance limits on the other two aircraft. ``It is the aerial equivalent of Herpes; it just keeps on giving.’’

He was equally disparaging about the Boeing Super Hornet, the plane favoured by Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, to stand in for the JSF if there are further delays in the stealth fighter program. ``It is a technological lemon’’.

Judging from the number of questions, the remaining committee members found the segment of the presentation detailing computer simulations of a hypothetical 2018 air battle between either 240 F-35s, 240 F-22 Raptors or 240 Super Hornets and an equivalent number of Sukhoi SU35s off the coast of Taiwan the most interesting.

It was claimed only 30 F-35s would survive as against no survivors for the Super Hornet force and 139 survivors for the F-22 force.

Senator Johnston said the claims were interesting but stressed it was important the committee be provided with the assumptions on which the simulation was based so it could be assessed with some degree of accuracy.

Setting: North-East Australia1. Our Simulation is a derivative work of Mr. Bond's Harpoon system. We allow users to input their own sensor, weapon, and platform data. Given that, our Australian partners, with some 35 yrs in the Defense Business, including a former RAAF Wing Commander, created a database and this demonstration scenario. This demonstrates how H3 MilSim can be used to try out different scenarios using your data and your scenarios. This particular scenario doesn't fare well for the JSF.... Your values for Pd, Ph, Pk on the sensors and missiles will yield different results.

2. The RAND Corporation came up with the same conclusions about 2 years ago separately for the USAF.

3. F-35 V Su-35 aircraft, the Scenario Author's Notes:

The simulation is an accurate representation of the kinematic performance of both the aircraft and the missiles as well as sensor performance.

The F-35 CTOL due to its stealth configuration and internal carriage of weapons has altitude, release speed and attitude constraints for missile launch that dramatically reduce the AIM 120 missile performance compared to firing the missile from other aircraft such as F-16 or F-15 that can burn the missile off the rails at higher speeds and with full attitude freedom. Some of these limitations also apply to the F-22.

The Su-35 aircraft enjoys significant advantages over the F-35 in terms of absolute altitude, speed, weapon capacity and weapon release speed. However, maneuverability in the terminal phase of an air to air missile engagement is where the Su-35 enjoys a substantial advantage using integrated thrustered engine control rather than relying solely upon control surfaces in thin air.

That is why the engagement is at high altitude as opposed to denser low altitude air.

This kinematic advantage translates into a reduced no-escape zone calculation for the release of the AIM 120 missile against the Su-35. The maximum release range for an AIM 120 against the Su-35 employing its full range of capabilities is less than 20nm based upon its specific impulse, burn duration (boost and sustain), control surface effectiveness above 50,000ft and susceptibility to countermeasures. Beyond that no-escape zone the AIM 120 missile has less than 5 % chance of hitting the target.

The US DoD had a program to improve the AIM 120 missile using a number of aspects such as additional fuel and 2 stage motor as well as better electronic counter counter measures (ECCM) but these have not delivered as yet.

The Su-35 or indeed any of the modern Su and Mig aircraft can bleed sufficient energy off a coasting AIM 120 missile at high altitude to cause it to reach minimum energy level in less than 15 seconds with a combination of maneuvers.

The current generation of AA-12 missiles are able to be launched effectively from more than 3 times the AIM 120 no-escape zone because of the energy advantage provided at launch, greater specific impulse, burn duration both boost and sustain, (due to larger fuel fraction) and good control surface performance at altitude.

The F-35 has limited kinematic evasive capability against advanced air to air missiles for example, it cannot sustain a 6 G turn at Mach 1 at 40,000ft. And this was why an additional energy based defensive system was designed into the aircraft.

However, this solution is not effective beyond the scanning limits of the DAS and the Russian (and Chinese) technique of launching dissimilar sensored missiles in salvos against adversary aircraft, nor is it inherently reliable. This generally leads to defeating aircraft such as F-35 due to the focus in the defensive cycle being ordered first by the active radar seeker turning on and the passive infra red (IR) sensor being able to achieve lock at twice the range of the radar seeker from both the head on or side against the F-35.

The F-35 now has a large head-on IR signature due to the excessive heat generated by the systems inside the nose radome, in excess to 200C. Its rear plume at military power is visible at over 50 kms to advanced IR sensors.

The reality is that the F-35 in air to air combat against most modern fighters has to cross a large killing zone before attempting to engage a target that can at anytime turn and out run the F-35 engagement zone based upon radar or IR sensor detection plotting.

In most simulations the F-35 is destroyed well before launching its weapons.

This is pathetic. I never expected that this was the level of analysis that APA brings to the table... I expected alot more than a Harpoon hack as the basis of their "computer simulation." As a defense professional, if I had to testify in front of a defence committee (and I've prepped others to do so), I would never go up with this shoddy work. I'd actually be ashamed if I did.

This entire event might be a blessing in disguise. So far APA has been careful not to put themselves in a position to be seriously critiqued by a reputable body. It might well the the opportunity for the defense community in Australia to basically unload on APA and savage their credibility in a public way. Usually governments will respond in a tactful way. However given the pitiful quality of information that they are putting out that is posioning the debate... the smart approach here would be to absolutely savage them and show them for what they are.

Seriously, I'm actually aghast at this. I can't believe that this is what so many people are using to claim the F-35 program is a disaster.

All these simulations strike me as being rather generous to the abilities/numbers of Russian/Chinese assets. Recall that, prior to the first gulf war, many (sorry, so long ago that sources escape memory) were lamenting the inferiority of US fighters against the Mig-29, which was also supposedly to be built in far greater numbers (it wasn't). I have my doubts as to whether the Su-35's production volume will ever approach F-35 levels, and I certainly don't buy into Russian claims of superiority, at least not under real world conditions. If you judge fighters by paper stats given by marketing material, you'll overlook what's most likely to happen when when the planes are fully loaded with fuel/weapons and the pilots are trying to manage all of it under combat conditions. One can only hope that future Su-35 pilots come to believe this fanboy propaganda.

All these simulations strike me as being rather generous to the abilities/numbers of Russian/Chinese assets. Recall that, prior to the first gulf war, many (sorry, so long ago that sources escape memory) were lamenting the inferiority of US fighters against the Mig-29, which was also supposedly to be built in far greater numbers (it wasn't). I have my doubts as to whether the Su-35's production volume will ever approach F-35 levels, and I certainly don't buy into Russian claims of superiority, at least not under real world conditions. If you judge fighters by paper stats given by marketing material, you'll overlook what's most likely to happen when when the planes are fully loaded with fuel/weapons and the pilots are trying to manage all of it under combat conditions. One can only hope that future Su-35 pilots come to believe this fanboy propaganda.

Okay, here's a question. How many air engagements with 240 aircraft a side ended with 100% of aircraft wiped out. Hell, even 50%?

Its ridiculous.

I've just read the submissions paper. I'm stunned. Its got facts.... ALOT of them. However they are misleading, filled with vulgarities and complete fabrications. Look at Page 5. He's using the weapon system cost to contradict a minister's flyaway cost claims. Anybody with a basic understanding of contracting would know that's not even close to the same thing. I scanned the rest of it and its all the same.

In a way this makes me angry. Its a smear campaign... plain and simple. Looking at what goon et al. are publishing is comparable to the News of the World vs the Financial Times.

Remembered visiting this website some time ago
Interesting website with a lot of information about the F35

Quote:Concerns over performance and safety

In 2006 the F-35 was downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", a change former RAAF flight test engineer Peter Goon likened to increasing the radar cross section from a marble to a beach ball.84

Andrew Krepinevich has questioned the reliance on "short range" aircraft like the F-35 or F-22 to 'manage' China in a future conflict and has suggested reducing the number of F-35s ordered in favor of a longer range platform like the Next-Generation Bomber, but Michael Wynne, then United States Secretary of the Air Force rejected this plan of action in 2007.858687 However in 2011, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) pointed to the restructuring of the F-35 program and the return of the bomber project as a sign of their effectiveness, while Rebecca Grant said that the restructuring was a "vote of confidence" in the F-35 and "there is no other stealthy, survivable new fighter program out there".88 Lockheed has also said that the F-35 is designed to launch internally carried bombs at supersonic speed and internal missiles at maximum supersonic speed.89

In 2008 it was reported that RAND Corporation conducted simulated war games in which Russian Sukhoi Su-35 fighters apparently defeated the F-35.90 As a result of these media reports, then Australian defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon requested a formal briefing from the Australian Department of Defence on the simulation. This briefing stated that the reports of the simulation were inaccurate and did not actually compare the F-35's flight performance against other aircraft.91

The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin added that these simulations did not address air-to-air combat.9293 A Lockheed Martin press-release points to USAF simulations regarding the F-35's air-to-air performance against potential adversaries described as "4th generation" fighters, in which it claims the F-35 is "400 percent" more effective. Major General Charles R. Davis, USAF, the F-35 program executive officer, has stated that the "F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois".93 The nature of the simulations, and the terms upon which the "400 percent" figure have been derived remains unclear. Regarding the original plan to fit the F-35 with only two air-to-air missiles, Major Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Commandâ€™s advanced air dominance branch is reported to have said that "I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons."94 However the Norwegians have been briefed on a plan to equip the F-35 with six AIM-120D missiles by 2019.95

Former RAND author John Stillion has written of the F-35A's air-to-air combat performance that it â€œcanâ€™t turn, canâ€™t climb, canâ€™t runâ€